downtonabbeyfandomcom-20200223-history
Forum:Adminship
As most of you have probably noticed, there are no active admins currently on Downton Abbey Wiki. Given our situation and the ongoing third season, it is probably a good idea that we select at least one active user to be bureaucrat and administrator. This will ensure that DA Wiki can be customized and tailored to fit the community's needs, and prevents us from being wide-open to vandalism. Presently, there is an active adoption request open at community central, which CestWhat and HarryPotterRules1 have both put their name forward. In addition, CestWhat published a blog regarding his request. In order to resolve this fairly for everyone, we should use a community forum instead of a blog, since it's neutral territory. It's the way most well-developed wikis choose new administrators. Generally, each user who wishes to be considered makes a statement - having a certain amount of time to do so. Then users can vote by placing their name under "support" or "oppose" for a different candidate. Naturally, only users with accounts can vote to prevent rigging. Personally, since we don't have any established rules about these processes (yet), I'm inclined to think a week for users to put their name forward and an additional week for voting is the way to go. We can link to this forum from community council when we're done. And like the case is usually with forums regarding community decisions, we should accept the result of the vote/discussion and move on, whether or not we personally preferred the outcome. -- 06:26, September 24, 2012 (UTC) EXAMPLE candidate section Username :Statement: blahblahblah Support Username #Support. Why support blah blah blah... (Usersignature) #Support. (Usersignature) Oppose Username #Oppose. Why oppose blah blah blah... (Usersignature) #Oppose. (Usersignature) General discussion :Please put any discussion about the process or desired qualifications for admins in this section. -- Fandyllic (talk · ) 26 Sep 2012 12:22 PM Pacific Votes of support would probably be bolstered by links to particularly good contributions by either candidate from supporters. The candidates themselves could also supply examples of what they think are good contributions. This would help voters "see into the mind" of the candidate by seeing what they think is a good contribution. Likewise, opposition would he bolstered by particularly bad contributions. By bad, I generally mean poorly written in terms of grammar and spelling, having obvious factual errors, or false/misleading references. Consideration must be taken when evaluating contributions in context. Often a series of contributions will result in a poor or fragmentary initial edit followed by several edits to improve the overall contribution, so the result of the series should be considered over individual edits. -- Fandyllic (talk · ) 26 Sep 2012 12:22 PM Pacific :In my view, the solution to this logjam is quite simple. Appoint a caretaker bureaucrat who has no vested interest in the subject matter of the wiki. Draft this person from the ranks of people who are active in the Admin & Founder Forums at Central. All you need is someone who knows a bit about CSS, templates, javascript and wiki administration. CestWhat and HarryPotterRules1 should be kept well away from bureaucrat powers, because it seems very likely that they would stack the admin ranks with people who are on their side of the fight and eventually force the other user out. Nothin' wrong with keeping these two on as admin, but neither should have the "upper hand" of being able to promote other users. :This wiki is in desperate need of neutral arbitration —and quickly, before the entire series of this show is spoiled by this messy wrangle for power. — CzechOut 18:16, September 27, 2012 (UTC) ::The solution is not simple without a user who has the power to appoint a caretaker bureaucrat. Also, Wikia staff really haven't been that helpful so far. If they were, there would probably be some help in this matter besides just saying effectively, "figutre it out for yourselves." -- Fandyllic (talk · ) 28 Sep 2012 1:41 PM Pacific :::I would like to point out that I have disagreements on edits by User:Seth_Cooper, User:AvatarRokusGhost, User:Hogwartsgirl and User:Fandyllic without issue. I like to think I handle it politely. CestWhat (talk) 22:36, October 4, 2012 (UTC) Current plan Since I am now the caretaker bureaucrat mentioned above, I have started aggressively working to resolve the dispute between HarryPotterRules1 and CestWhat (likely to neither of their desires, but that's probably best). I have actively opposed HarryPotterRules1 because this user has now repeatedly stated they believe threats work as a method to keep their edits intact. This is very bad. On the flip-side CestWhat does not handle disagreements politely, but more rather acts as a rabid exclusionist with little effort to explain content removal or preserve that which still has validity, but may not meet CestWhat's standards. I have told each user that they must apologize to each other (one for threats and the other for overly aggressive content removal). If neither does, they will both likely be banned for a period starting at a month and increasing thereafter. Neither is fit to be an admin and both are disruptive. Whether either can reform is yet to be seen. Now we wait. -- Fandyllic (talk · ) 1 Nov 2012 2:08 PM Pacific I have apologised - did so ages ago. Haven't received a reply. Block is in order, I think? HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 03:14, December 22, 2012 (UTC) :"Quoting; "On the flip-side CestWhat does not handle disagreements politely, but more rather acts as a rabid exclusionist with little effort to explain content removal or preserve that which still has validity, but may not meet CestWhat's standards." :I disagreed with edits made and that in and of itself isn't an offense. I wasn't rude or insulting about it (User:HPR taking offense to be questioned isn't the same thing as he/she thinks that just "starting if" means I'm wrong). The very first edit I made, User:HPR told me I needed to watch the show and it's been one insult after another. Where is an example of a personal insult or inpoliteness on my part. I explained the reasoning behind removing the either incorrect or speculative material in these articles. I also made explanation multiple times and in-depth detail. That User:HPR or others ignored them isn't the same as me not making them at all. I've been characterized as over-zealous or overly doctrinaire with regards to these "edit wars," but I disagreed and I thought laid out a fair case against that on my talk page. There were no administrators at the time and no process for resolving "war edits" so while my methods (just removing the information when User:HRP would put it back on the articles) is something that one might disagree with it, but it's exactly what User:HPR did as well (who starts an "edit war" isn't the sole factor in blame). And note User:HPR didn't apologize to me over any "edit wars," but a massive lack of civility and insults which finally ended with a threatening me. So what I am apologizing for beyond making User:HPR upset which is his/her issue since a disagreement over infomation within an article or being asked to validate one's claims shouldn't be something that's discouraged or banned from this DA wiki. :As it happens, I DID apologise to you - Fandyllic SAW the apology. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 03:51, December 22, 2012 (UTC) CestWhat There isn't any other admins on this Wiki and User:Fandyllic has suggested I do it. The admin really isn't that much different from any other contributor beyond ability to delete and there are a couple of things that ought to be deleted (i.e. I have uploaded a picture by accident but it's still here). I will try to be reasonable in any disputes. I understand I'm neither the author of this Wiki nor am I the creator of this show. I have to understand that others' have differing points of views and not always differ to myself as the sole authority. I'd just like to have a wiki that's fun to contribute to and informative to either a fresh fan of DA or one who is obsessed with every detail. CestWhat (talk) 16:40, September 25, 2012 (UTC) Support CestWhat #Support He has the composure to take on this responsibility. -- 14:43, October 9, 2012 (UTC)(Usersignature) Oppose CestWhat #Oppose. — You don't appear to have the proper temperament for the job, because you seem completely unwilling to work with User:HarryPotterRules1. CzechOut 18:09, September 27, 2012 (UTC) #Oppose. — You keep removing canon information that I post, even after it has been discussed with Seth Cooper or Fandyllic. I, and the rest of the wiki, will never accept you as Admin until this is sorted (and until you have apologised for removing information that has now been confirmed as canon) HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 01:08, November 1, 2012 (UTC) #:The top of this page makes it pretty clear User:HarryPotterRules1 opposes me and vis-versa so bit redundant. Also the two other contributors sited above both oppose User:HarryPotterRules1. CestWhat (talk) 02:53, November 1, 2012 (UTC) #:HarryPotterRules1 is not posting canon information despite what is said above. Also, although HarryPotterRules1 has discussed changes with me, I have not agreed, so the statement above is further misleading. -- Fandyllic (talk · ) 1 Nov 2012 2:33 PM Pacific HarryPotterRules1 There are no admins on this wiki, and I know how to work a wiki - having several of my own that are admined by me and friends - so I would be good for this. As well as this, certain pages that were perfectly fine with canon information, were altered and ruined. As an Admin, I would be able to stop this, and restore the pages to how they needed to be. Naturally, I am not the creator of this wiki, and I am definitely not Julian Fellowes. I understand that people have different opinions, but not when it comes to canon information; it's canon information or none at all. This, is why I should be an admin. This, and the fact that I have, I believe, been here longer than CestWhat, for I have been here (though not actively editing) since the wiki began. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 22:31, September 25, 2012 (UTC) Support HarryPotterRules1 #Support (Usersignature) Oppose HarryPotterRules1 #Oppose It's not a matter of who's right and who's wrong in these disagreements. It's how one handles them and conducts themself. HarryPotterRules straight-out admitted that he/she would block a user on a whim. That alone is unbecoming of an admin. -- 14:43, October 9, 2012 (UTC) #Oppose. — You don't appear to have the proper temperament for the job, because you seem completely unwilling to work with User:CestWhat. CzechOut 18:09, September 27, 2012 (UTC) #Oppose. - HPR clearly does not have the patience to listen and consider other people's opinions, but instead brushes their concerns off and relies on assumptions that could be spurious and have no support through episode dialogue or the press packs. Dragonrider2 (talk) 00:49, October 19, 2012 (UTC) #Oppose - Unless I can get a reasonable explanation for this HTML comment (which I highly doubt), it is clear that HarryPotterRules1 does not have the temperament to be a trusted admin. Too much of a loose cannon. -- Fandyllic (talk · ) 25 Oct 2012 11:03 AM Pacific #Oppose. I've seen you engaging in pointless threats, personal attacks and throwing tantrums, and that is definitely NOT the way to go, even if one is right (and I am not saying anyone is right or wrong). Administrators also have to be mediators during some arguments, and I don't think you'd quite cut it. -- [[User:Seth Cooper| Seth Cooper ]][[User talk:Seth Cooper| talk page!]] 23:52, October 31, 2012 (UTC) Comment :I have, I believe, been here longer than CestWhat, for I have been here (though not actively editing) since the wiki began. If you could have lurked prior to editing, how do you know CW wasn't also doing that? Rather than heresay (seeing as how people seem to say contrary things about various issues) I'd just go by the data: *CW's first edit in October 2011. *HPR's first edit in March 2012. The wiki was founded October 2010. But such things aren't the only consideration, activity or longevity. There's always subtle stuff like quality and community get-alongedness which is always difficult to demonstrate. The ideal thing to do would perhaps give examples of problematic edits observed from one another via linking edit diffs? Hard data should always accompany paraphrasing of memories to keep accurate and let people assess it. +Y 08:27, September 28, 2012 (UTC) Caretaker bureaucrat I was asked to be a temporary bureaucrat for this wiki by Wendy and have agreed. However, since I am one of the only 2 active admins at WoWWiki and things are very busy over there, I will only be responding to requests slowly. I will try to make improvements here and there. -- Fandyllic (talk · ) 22 Oct 2012 11:16 AM Pacific Would it be easier? Would it be easier if I just set up a "Downton Abbey Wiki 2"? That way, all the bitching can be avoided. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 07:53, October 26, 2012 (UTC) :I would strongly advise against it. Why splitting up, when we can all work together to build a strong community and a complete wiki? The problem around here, I think, is that there is not sufficient dialogue. Things (especially the most controversial ones, such as dates and whatnot) should be throroughly discussed whenever there's a disagreement — not via counterproductive edit warring, and personal attacks that leave everyone flustered and frustrated, and that lead to nowhere. -- [[User:Seth Cooper| Seth Cooper ]][[User talk:Seth Cooper| talk page!]] 18:40, October 27, 2012 (UTC) ::I do discuss them now - with you (or Fandylic if you're not here) but CestWhat disagrees EVERY SINGLE TIMES WITHOUT FAIL and removes the edit leading to an edit war where I have to re-add it in: That's why I suggested ANOTHER wiki. CestWhat can deal with this one, and me the other. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 00:04, October 28, 2012 (UTC) :::There is another wiki, downton.wikia.com, but it has less than 20 pages and is otherwise neglected. I was thinking about getting it's subdomain to redirect here. :::HarryPotterRules1, you really need to understand how to use primary sources to support your changes. CestWhat may be an exclusionist and stickler for accurate info, but tends to be correct in removing many of your changes. :::My current push is to move more speculative info into a "Speculation" section or "Notes" section rather than remove it. HarryPotterRules1's reasoning is often sensible, if flawed and the information added is not totally useless, just sometimes misleading. -- Fandyllic (talk · ) 30 Oct 2012 10:43 AM Pacific Date :This section (and followup sections) was moved to a new post, Forum:Dealing with dates, since it was off topic for a discussion about picking admins. -- Fandyllic (talk · ) 30 Oct 2012 12:55 PM Pacific Considering Leaving Due to Biased Attitudes Well, I obviously cannot seem to win so, fuck it to hell - and damn you all to it as well! I hope you rot in the depest pits of Tartarus! - I'm considering leaving. Happy now? Hmm? Hmm? '''HMM?! CestWhat's behaviour - coupled with the ''OBVIOUSL''Y bias support of Fandyllic - has forced me to consider leaving and going elsewhere - perhaps to my ''OWN'' Downton Abbey wiki. Fandyllic demands ''I '''''apologise, which I will do, once I've had CestWhat's apology, given that it was the actions of said person that started this in the first place. I shall not be apologising for something I didn't start. The threat just sort of, well, ended it really. It slammed a wall in front of CestWhat which I refuse to lower without an apology. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 02:54, November 6, 2012 (UTC)